I’ve actually been thinking about this for a while, here’s a very rough draft outline of what I’ve got:
1. Which questions are important? a. How should we practice cause prioritization in effective altruism? b. How should we think about long shots at very large effects? (Pascal’s Mugging) c. How much should we be focusing on the global level, vs. our own happiness and ability to lead a normal life? d. How do we identify gaps in our knowledge that might be wrong and need further evaluation? e. How do we identify unexamined areas of our lives or decisions we make automatically? Should we examine those areas and make those decisions less automatically?
2. How do we determine whether we are operating in the right paradigm? a. What are paradigms? Are they useful to think about? b. If we were using the wrong paradigm, how would we know? How could we change it? c. How do we learn new paradigms well enough to judge them at all?
3. How do we determine what the possible hypotheses are? a. Are we unreasonably bad at generating new hypotheses once we have one, due to confirmation bias? How do we solve this? b. Are there surprising techniques that can help us with this problem?
4. Which of the possible hypotheses is true? a. How do we make accurate predictions? b. How do we calibrate our probabilities?
5. How do we balance our explicit reasoning vs. that of other people and society? a. Inside vs. outside view? b. How do we identify experts? How much should we trust them? c. Does cultural evolution produce accurate beliefs? How willing should we be to break tradition? d. How much should the replication crisis affect our trust in science? e. How well does good judgment travel across domains?
6. How do we go from accurate beliefs to accurate aliefs and effective action? a. Akrasia and procrastination b. Do different parts of the brain have different agendas? How can they all get on the same page?
7. How do we create an internal environment conducive to getting these questions right? a. Do strong emotions help or hinder rationality? b. Do meditation and related practices help or hinder rationality? c. Do psychedelic drugs help or hinder rationality?
8. How do we create a community conducive to getting these questions right? a. Is having “a rationalist community” useful? b. How do strong communities arise and maintain themselves? c. Should a community be organically grown or carefully structured? d. How do we balance conflicting desires for an accepting where everyone can bring their friends and have fun, vs. high-standards devotion to a serious mission? e. How do we prevent a rationalist community from becoming insular / echo chambery / cultish? f. …without also admitting every homeopath who wants to convince us that “homeopathy is rational”? g. How do we balance the need for a strong community hub with the need for strong communities on the rim? h. Can these problems be solved by having many overlapping communities with slightly different standards?
9. How does this community maintain its existence in the face of outside pressure?
I’ve actually been thinking about this for a while, here’s a very rough draft outline of what I’ve got:
1. Which questions are important?
a. How should we practice cause prioritization in effective altruism?
b. How should we think about long shots at very large effects? (Pascal’s Mugging)
c. How much should we be focusing on the global level, vs. our own happiness and ability to lead a normal life?
d. How do we identify gaps in our knowledge that might be wrong and need further evaluation?
e. How do we identify unexamined areas of our lives or decisions we make automatically? Should we examine those areas and make those decisions less automatically?
2. How do we determine whether we are operating in the right paradigm?
a. What are paradigms? Are they useful to think about?
b. If we were using the wrong paradigm, how would we know? How could we change it?
c. How do we learn new paradigms well enough to judge them at all?
3. How do we determine what the possible hypotheses are?
a. Are we unreasonably bad at generating new hypotheses once we have one, due to confirmation bias? How do we solve this?
b. Are there surprising techniques that can help us with this problem?
4. Which of the possible hypotheses is true?
a. How do we make accurate predictions?
b. How do we calibrate our probabilities?
5. How do we balance our explicit reasoning vs. that of other people and society?
a. Inside vs. outside view?
b. How do we identify experts? How much should we trust them?
c. Does cultural evolution produce accurate beliefs? How willing should we be to break tradition?
d. How much should the replication crisis affect our trust in science?
e. How well does good judgment travel across domains?
6. How do we go from accurate beliefs to accurate aliefs and effective action?
a. Akrasia and procrastination
b. Do different parts of the brain have different agendas? How can they all get on the same page?
7. How do we create an internal environment conducive to getting these questions right?
a. Do strong emotions help or hinder rationality?
b. Do meditation and related practices help or hinder rationality?
c. Do psychedelic drugs help or hinder rationality?
8. How do we create a community conducive to getting these questions right?
a. Is having “a rationalist community” useful?
b. How do strong communities arise and maintain themselves?
c. Should a community be organically grown or carefully structured?
d. How do we balance conflicting desires for an accepting where everyone can bring their friends and have fun, vs. high-standards devotion to a serious mission?
e. How do we prevent a rationalist community from becoming insular / echo chambery / cultish?
f. …without also admitting every homeopath who wants to convince us that “homeopathy is rational”?
g. How do we balance the need for a strong community hub with the need for strong communities on the rim?
h. Can these problems be solved by having many overlapping communities with slightly different standards?
9. How does this community maintain its existence in the face of outside pressure?